Who is Alan Fox, why do you want me to go there? Are you inviting me to debate something? I don't mind participating here, but none of the topics interest me at the moment. Maybe I will in the future. I just wanted to set the record straight, I'm done for now.

Based on past experience, I'm sure the design detection at TT is a good as any other creobot site. How many designs have you guys found now? What about that bacterial flagella, eh? Is that designed? Start a thread here, and we'll chat. Or not.

You can participate in any thread you want, an amazing concept, I know. Tell me about your design detection. I want success stories. I'm still on board that ol' time evilution sinking ship... but being quite rat-like I'll be the first to leave if you make a compelling case.

Guts has not denied that he attempted to commit extortion by asking to me to a make false statement in exchange for lifting my ban at TT.

Guts still believes that holding an opinion that a particular quote is taken out of context is sufficient grounds for banning.

Guts has ratcheted up the rhetoric. My rational arguments about why a particular quote by Paul Davies is taken out of context is now construed as "harassment". Let Guts provide the exact post of mine which he claims may be so construed: he will find none. He will find each and every post of mine at TT to be calmly and rationally presented.

Guts has still not made a public apology at TT commensurate with his public apology here (and his profuse private apology to me in email).

Guts has officially discarded what he said to me in email. It is normally bad form to quote a private email, but by practicing historical revisionism Guts forces my hand.

Quote (Guts @ email to Frostman)

Bradford only deleted 1 of your posts, per my instruction, I deleted the rest because I perceived the situation as a hostile reaction to Bradford's initial decision, for which I apologize to you. This goes for the rest of the deletions as well, all the rest of the deletions were my doing because of what I perceived as a hostile attack on Bradford, an attempt to circumvent his decision. Really you just felt that your posts were unjustly deleted out of existence, I would get mad at that as well.

Since I used a temporary gmail account for this exchange, I am prepared to hand over the account to a neutral party who will verify that the above words are authentic.

As I have stated several times now, the particulars of a disagreement are unimportant compared to the right to disagree in the first place. At TT, there is no right to disagree.

That said, Guts may indeed see my point of view even though he asserts otherwise. The gist of my argument was that the omission of the two sentences preceding the Davies quote in question produced an impression which was unfaithful to Davies' intended meaning.

Quote (Guts @ email to Frostman)

Also, it doesn't even make sense in this situation to say he took it out of context, Bradford was not talking about Davies's intended meaning, but the reaction from various atheists on the internet to the one sentence.

Yes, you nailed it precisely, Guts. Bradford was not talking about Davies' intended meaning. That is exactly why the quote is taken out of context. The number one rule in quoting is to be faithful to the intended meaning. Thank you for clarifying.

Lest the conversation gets sidetracked on this, let me repeat again: the particulars of a disagreement are unimportant compared to the right to disagree in the first place. My position is a rational one which deserves a place in a forum which values a free exchange of ideas.

Blog owners have a right to censor content on their blog. However, an ethical problem occurs when censors try to pretend they are not censoring.

TT does not support a free exchange of ideas. And that is fine. But let us not pretend otherwise, okay Guts?

Guts, I am not writing here because I want you to lift my ban. In reference to your mistakes which you have admitted both here at AE and to me in email, I want you to come clean. This is your ethical (though not legal) obligation. I shall conclude by repeating what I have said to you before in this regard:

TT readers have not been informed of what truly occurred. Some TT readers may also read AE, but many do not. The honest course of action is to tell them.

Your opinion of me and my position are unrelated to the ethical obligation in front of you. You require nothing from me in order to fulfill that obligation.

Not to make Rich a fibber, I closed comments at my blog because it was starting to accumulate spam. but if Guts feels he can dig himself out of his hole better at Languedoc Diary than this den of ebola spredn' church burn'n iniquity, I will dust off the furniture and open up for him.

Bradford: It's not a good means of refuting probability assesments. It's better suited to revealing causality.

Zachriel: In other words, it depends on our knowledge of the particulars. And if we are ignorant as to why certain patterns occur, the Inference may yield a false positive. Consequently, Dembski's Inference is unsound. Thanks!

Bradford: We also know that unequally weighted and formed objects would not be assessed the same way we would assess a perfectly symetrical coin, for example, in computing odds.

Zachriel: That's fine. Where in Dembski's formula do I find the falling dynamics of peanut butter sandwiches? It seems I have to already know the answer to work out the math.

Bradford: Where does Dembski imply that his methodology would be applicable to your attempted reduction to absurdity?

valerie: I'm not aware that Dembski has placed any limits on the scope of applicability of his methodology. Can you point us to any of his writings that establish such limits? Also, please explain why the methodology is applicable to flipped coins but not to falling slices of peanut-buttered bread.

Bradford: Why resort to a statistical analysis when explanations citing a physical cause are available.

valerie: Where did you get the idea that causal scenarios are outside the scope of statistical methods?